D&D 5E How many PCs have you had die?

[iserith]

See, yeah, if the GM isn't at all interested in my character's story, why should I come up with one? It won't really make a difference to you or anyone else, so it's just a waste of my time.

I think this is where you have me wrong. I do care what your character's story is. But I want to see it in play, not read about it beforehand. Show, not tell.

My combat turn will make logical sense, because if I've learned one thing about combat it's that the opportunities to do anything truly outside the box are few

That is certainly not true in my games. It saddens me to hear players of a game based chiefly on imagination say that.

What's passive aggressive about it? It might be passive, but it's not aggressive. Again, there's no downside for you as the GM. So what if my characters aren't role-played to the hilt? Don't you have bigger fish to fry?

Passive aggression is when you offer indirect resistance to the demands of others and avoid direct confrontation by way of procrastinating, pouting, or the like. I would see what you are suggesting as passive aggression.

Which bigger fish am I frying in your estimation? There seems to be a lot of assuming going on here.

Well, you've just said you don't want to read my backstory, and that I have to be concise in communicating the concept of my character to the other players. I assume that philosophy carries through the game. So yeah, nuance and texture are out the window. Not sure why that's a bad thing from your perspective, especially since on your side of the screen there is literally no difference. You think you have the Insight to detect that I'm dissatisfied in any way? You don't, trust me. Because I found a way to not be dissatisfied and I'm enjoying your game for what it is. I'm probably enjoying the opportunity to play so many different classes and backgrounds, so that when I do get to play in a real character-based campaign, I won't have to waste a lot of time learning the combat mechanics for that class, and I will have a sense of the dynamics of the build, and how to tweak it to maximize character stuff. I really don't see how you lose anything in this scenario at all.

I really don't see how you can draw these conclusions about a game that has character death in it.

EDIT: On the subject of showing and not telling, you can even go read transcripts of my game: Actual Play Transcripts. I don't think you could read that and say I don't care about "character stuff."

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

See, yeah, if the GM isn't at all interested in my character's story, why should I come up with one?

Declaring the DM "not at all interested in my character's story" because they want that story to happen or be revealed during the actual play of the campaign, not in a pre-written form to read at their leisure is a bit extreme, no?

I think there is a whole field of gray you've leapt past to get from the white of "DM read my canned backstory" to the black of "DM is interested in my character's story."

Take me for example: I'm all about story as DM... but the story I am all about is the one authored by all the players and I together as the campaign unfolds - not the multiple-page write-up a player has written about only their character that also doesn't actually have anything to do with the story that will take place in the campaign (because I'm not going to take the time to read it, so I can't incorporate any of it). Similarly, I'm not going to hand each player any kind of back-story of the campaign they are about to play in and require them to read it - if it can't be given broad strokes in a couple sentences while preparing to play, and given more detail during the course of play, then it isn't relevant.

Further, when it comes to background detail, I think it is important to note as a player the difference between a useful background detail and a background detail that is only going to result in high risk of disappointment:

For example, if a player tells me that their character has family members that disapprove of their chosen way of life, that's a useful detail - I can easily build on that in any way that fits into the campaign as it unfolds during play, and have successfully incorporated the character's personal story into the shared story of the party.

If a player writes a specific family member, or worse multiple, that disapprove of their chosen way of life and establishes personalities and other details of these supporting characters - I am then capable of portraying the NPC the player designed in a way that doesn't match what the player sees in their head, which results in the player being disappointed or feeling that I have "ruined" their character's back-story... and that's after I make sure that the campaign details line up with the player's back-story details, which means I have to actually plan ahead where I would normally be able to run the entire campaign by improvising after an established start point.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Which bigger fish am I frying in your estimation?

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally hope that it is catfish (with some hush puppies, a nice spicy rémoulade, and beer to wash it all down).

 

[Morinth]

I think this is where you have me wrong. I do care what your character's story is. But I want to see it in play, not read about it beforehand. Show, not tell.

So, you want me to have THREE fully realized nuanced characters ready to go at game time. And chances are good that the first one will die within a few game sessions. How is this a good use of my time?

That is certainly not true in my games. It saddens me to hear players of a game based chiefly on imagination say that..

Combat is tiresome to me. I have a move action, and I have a standard action, and depending on my class, I might have a bonus action. I don't see a lot of opportunity to do much besides move, take an action, and use a bonus action. Yes, there is a lot you can do within that framework, and you have all your characters abilities to draw from. But it's a pretty finite pool of options from what I can see. I will make the most of those options, don't get me wrong, that's pretty much the whole point of a game like this, but in the final analysis it's going to boil down to moves, standard actions, and bonus actions.

Passive aggression is when you offer indirect resistance to the demands of others and avoid direct confrontation by way of procrastinating, pouting, or the like. I would see what you are suggesting as passive aggression.

Which bigger fish am I frying in your estimation? There seems to be a lot of assuming going on here..

But I'm not offering any resistance, of any kind, to anyone. I'm not procrastinating, pouting, or doing anything of the sort. I am active and engaged in the game. I just don't have a strong characterization or emotional attachment to my character. It seems unnecessary in this type of game. I play my character class/race well, and I certainly will rise to the occasion if role-playing moments present themselves, because why not? But if she dies, she dies, and I'm moving on to the next character without looking back. Not sure why that's a bad thing.

I really don't see how you can draw these conclusions about a game that has character death in it.

I'm drawing my conclusions based on everything you've told me about your GM style. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see what's inappropriate in my approach. I'm playing the game you're creating, and I'm not disruptive or uncooperative any way, and I'm having fun. So why are you upset?

 

[Morinth]

Declaring the DM "not at all interested in my character's story" because they want that story to happen or be revealed during the actual play of the campaign, not in a pre-written form to read at their leisure is a bit extreme, no?

I think there is a whole field of gray you've leapt past to get from the white of "DM read my canned backstory" to the black of "DM is interested in my character's story."

Take me for example: I'm all about story as DM... but the story I am all about is the one authored by all the players and I together as the campaign unfolds - not the multiple-page write-up a player has written about only their character that also doesn't actually have anything to do with the story that will take place in the campaign (because I'm not going to take the time to read it, so I can't incorporate any of it). Similarly, I'm not going to hand each player any kind of back-story of the campaign they are about to play in and require them to read it - if it can't be given broad strokes in a couple sentences while preparing to play, and given more detail during the course of play, then it isn't relevant.

Further, when it comes to background detail, I think it is important to note as a player the difference between a useful background detail and a background detail that is only going to result in high risk of disappointment:

For example, if a player tells me that their character has family members that disapprove of their chosen way of life, that's a useful detail - I can easily build on that in any way that fits into the campaign as it unfolds during play, and have successfully incorporated the character's personal story into the shared story of the party.

If a player writes a specific family member, or worse multiple, that disapprove of their chosen way of life and establishes personalities and other details of these supporting characters - I am then capable of portraying the NPC the player designed in a way that doesn't match what the player sees in their head, which results in the player being disappointed or feeling that I have "ruined" their character's back-story... and that's after I make sure that the campaign details line up with the player's back-story details, which means I have to actually plan ahead where I would normally be able to run the entire campaign by improvising after an established start point.

See, I'm not just talking about backstory, I'm talking about the whole process of building a character and getting inside her head and playing her. There are varying levels of effort that can be brought to bear in this activity. If a game isn't likely to be a real character piece, it's probably not a good idea to spend a lot of time on that angle. That's really all I'm trying to say. That, and if a DM is going to go through my carefully crafted characters like Kleenex, at some point that GM is going to get my least effort in character building. Not sure why any GM should expect any other scenario to play out. Maybe they just like watching players mourn their dead characters, but I'm not ever going to be that player.

 

[iserith]

So, you want me to have THREE fully realized nuanced characters ready to go at game time. And chances are good that the first one will die within a few game sessions. How is this a good use of my time?

I ask players to have a character and a backup character ready to go each with a Twitter-length statement that says something about their personality and history.

What they do beyond that is up to them.

Combat is tiresome to me. I have a move action, and I have a standard action, and depending on my class, I might have a bonus action. I don't see a lot of opportunity to do much besides move, take an action, and use a bonus action. Yes, there is a lot you can do within that framework, and you have all your characters abilities to draw from. But it's a pretty finite pool of options from what I can see. I will make the most of those options, don't get me wrong, that's pretty much the whole point of a game like this, but in the final analysis it's going to boil down to moves, standard actions, and bonus actions.

Combat is just one of many ways of choosing to overcome a challenge. At the risk of being wrong, I'm going to assume you have no issue using your imagination to come up with nuanced characters. Do you struggle when coming up with interesting things to do in a fight?

But I'm not offering any resistance, of any kind, to anyone. I'm not procrastinating, pouting, or doing anything of the sort. I am active and engaged in the game. I just don't have a strong characterization or emotional attachment to my character. It seems unnecessary in this type of game. I play my character class/race well, and I certainly will rise to the occasion if role-playing moments present themselves, because why not? But if she dies, she dies, and I'm moving on to the next character without looking back. Not sure why that's a bad thing.

Uh-huh. I can't be the only one seeing what you're doing here. [MENTION=6803664]ccs[/MENTION] sees it to, I think.

I'm drawing my conclusions based on everything you've told me about your GM style. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see what's inappropriate in my approach. I'm playing the game you're creating, and I'm not disruptive or uncooperative any way, and I'm having fun. So why are you upset?

Why do you think I'm upset?

Check the edit to my last post and you can see my "GM style" in action. I think you'll find your conclusions are erroneous.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

See, I'm not just talking about backstory, I'm talking about the whole process of building a character and getting inside her head and playing her.

Perhaps it is some outlandish talent, or perhaps just training from having been a DM so long, but building a character (non-mechanically - just the getting into the character and playing it) takes less time and effort than deciding what I am going to eat for my next meal.

That's really all I'm trying to say.

It has come off as saying something entirely different because of the words and phrasing you've used.

That, and if a DM is going to go through my carefully crafted characters like Kleenex, at some point that GM is going to get my least effort in character building.

I both see where you are coming from, as I am the guy at the table that gets to play in only 1 out of every 30 or so campaigns because I am the DM and I also manage to play more characters in each of those campaigns than anyone else (sometimes even collectively) because the characters end up dying so I know that it can wear on a person (like when I played 7 characters in a 4th edition campaign that only lasted 4 months, and the last three each only in one session each) - and that your estimation of iserith as a DM that is going to "go through my carefully crafted characters like Kleenex," isn't all that accurate since his play style allows a player wanting to avoid dead characters ample opportunity (in both choice and die rolls) to not have a character die.

His rule about having back-up characters on-deck is not because he has a goal of making the player use those back-ups, but because having those back-ups on hand removes the only real negative from character death: the player being unable to play for a prolonged period of time as they draw up another character.

 

[Morinth]

I ask players to have a character and a backup character ready to go each with a Twitter-length statement that says something about their personality and history.

What they do beyond that is up to them.

So why is not okay that I don't expend maximal effort, given that a greater quantity of characters is going to be required in this setting? I don't have unlimited prep time, so I have to make sure I'm using it wisely. Instead of crafted one really amazing character, I need to come up with two decent ones. And as you say, their stories will come out during play anyway, so why not just improvise when and if the opportunity presents itself?

Combat is just one of many ways of choosing to overcome a challenge. At the risk of being wrong, I'm going to assume you have no issue using your imagination to come up with nuanced characters. Do you struggle when coming up with interesting things to do in a fight?

Nope. I run through all the options quickly, and I select the most appropriate course of action given the field of battle, the enemies, and what I know about my team's conditions. I also know I have a combat role, and I need to hold up my end. If I'm the spellcaster, I know that there are certain things that only I can do, and if I don't do them, things will break bad. If I'm a cleric or a fighter, well, things are even more straightforward. More often than not, if I'm a fighter, the best thing I can do is run up to some mean person and whack them with my weapon. I can use whatever abilities I have at my disposal to make that whack really count, but it's going to be some variation on the theme of whack the mean person.

Uh-huh. I can't be the only one seeing what you're doing here. [MENTION=6803664]ccs[/MENTION] sees it to, I think.

You think you know, but you don't. You've never gamed with me. A scenario like this has actually played out in one of my groups, which is why I know that my approach isn't disruptive or even noticeable to the other players or the GM. Literally no one has ever taken me to task for upsetting the dynamic at the table over this or anything else. I am a team player, but I'm not going to play a different game than everyone else at the table, I'm going to play the game that's going on at the table. And getting all bent out of shape because Sylvia the Bard bit the dust doesn't do anyone any good, least of all me. Moving on to Cindy the Sorcerer, and pass the chips and salsa, if you please.

Why do you think I'm upset?

Check the edit to my last post and you can see my "GM style" in action. I think you'll find your conclusions are erroneous.

If you want me to read a bunch of transcripts of your GMing, I'm just not going to do that. Can you give me a 140 character synopsis? [Protip: THAT'S passive aggression]

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If I really have a "choice" whether to engage in combat, I can guarantee you that I'm pretty much never going to choose to engage in combat. I will talk to NPCs until the GM is blue in the face, but I'll always run away from a fight. If combat is an almost guaranteed death sentence, why would I ever choose it? How do I know this random dude isn't a 17th level ranger in disguise? If I care about my PC at all, I'll do everything I can to keep her alive. If I don't care about her, at some point I will just throw her off a cliff myself, and see just how many suspiciously similar substitutes I can mow down in the game.

This is a valid way to play D&D. In fact, it is arguably the most old-school way to play. Avoid the fights, steal the treasure.

5E isn't that great at this mode of play but that's fixable.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6825499]Morinth[/MENTION], after reading your other replies to folks, I find myself having a bit of confusion. I understand that some players enjoy writing up background novella's for their characters, that's cool. I also understand some players enjoy hitting the books and 'learning' all the stuff their character can do and then put serious effort into learning different tricks/tactics/combo's that they can try and use if the opportunity comes up. Also cool. I also understand that some players are really heavy into the characterization/role-playing of their character during the session. Again, cool.

However... my confusion is that what I am reading into your replies is that you wouldn't do any of that if you weren't getting recognition and/or a reward for it from someone else. You've said things that basically boil down to If [the DM] isn't going to reward me for something, why bother trying? To me, personally, I find this attitude very confusion. I, for example, spend hours and hours writing up info on all manner of things for my campaign world. From flora and fauna, to unusual weather patterns, to unique monsters or terrain features in some area, and everything in between. I make notes about seemingly "pointless" NPC's (e.g., a random encounter with a traveler...I may quickly jot down Widower, lost son a year ago, wandering town to town in search of him; afraid of cats, hated parents ). Stuff that the PC's are likely never to learn about because chances are they'll say "Hi! Any dangers ahead? No? Ok, thanks! Have a nice day!" and continue down the road. But that doesn't matter to me. I do this "extra" stuff because I like to. I draw maps, colour maps, I search the web for cool artwork, I paint miniatures I'm likely never going to use. Doing it is it's own reward. I see writing up a multi-page background for a character the same way. If the DM only 'skims it or gets the broad strokes', that's fine. I don't care one way or the other because I enjoyed doing it for myself. It was fun!

So, when I see your posts alluding to "why bother?", and "what's the point, my PC's would all be disposable", and that sort of thing...I'm confused. Do you honestly not get any enjoyment from being creative and writing/reading/drawing stuff for fun? If you write up a three page background for a character, and nobody reads it, do you honestly feel you "wasted your time"? This is what I'm getting a feeling of. And, as I said...it's perplexing for me.

Personally, I tell my players to put no more thought into their character than a few key elements. "Fenwick has no living relatives. He enjoys fine wine and non-vocal music. He tends to scribble in the margins of books, or on rocks, tables, or whatever is around when he's relaxing. He also doesn't trust elven folk...having bad teenage experiences with them. His favorite colour is dark green". That's enough for a 1st level character, IMHO. If the character lives past the first session or two, please expand as needed. I enjoy characters being created this way. It gives me, the DM, room to help integrate the character with the world, and gives the player opportunity to keep the character "fresh".

Anyway, i've rambled on enough.

^_^

Paul L. Ming